Tiger or Jack? Who's the best ever?

Earlier this year, I asked Jack Nicklaus if it mattered to him whether he or Tiger Woods was remembered as the greatest player who ever lived.

He looked at me as if I were a Titleist Pro V1 he wished he could tee up and swat somewhere far away.

Then he shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't care less.

Tiger or Jack? Who's the best ever?

So with the annoying skill we reporters practice, I asked him the same question in a different way. Betraying the slightest smile, he granted me my mulligan.

"Well," he said. "Tiger can't be remembered as the greatest of the 20th century. The 21st, yes. Let's leave it at that.''

We could, Jack, but that wouldn't be any fun. We, as humans, are compelled to rank everything we see, hear, feel and even consume. We must designate "best ever" and "worst ever" so we can compare everything else that comes along. This is our nature.

Tiger or Jack? Who's the best ever?

With Woods winning the PGA Championship last week and creeping closer to Nicklaus' record of 18 professional major championships, we're going to hear the comparisons between the Golden Bear and Tiger grow.

Nicklaus is the best ever in golf, but with Woods still five majors away, you're already hearing that premise challenged. You're hearing the argument that Woods is more dominant than Nicklaus was and that Woods was more well-rounded as a player.

Woods has no rival in golf today. Nicklaus is his one and only rival, and you wonder how much fun it would be if we could magically pit them against each other in their primes. You wonder if Nicklaus at his best could beat Woods at his best.

I say Nicklaus' 18 major championship victories matter most in this debate, that he's the greater player until Woods equals the mark, but if you ask me who'd win more times if Nicklaus and Woods played head-to-head in their primes, I'd say Woods. Nicklaus was a better and straighter long driver of the ball, but Woods' superior short game would give him the edge overall.